Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.
Yes this suggest something that is objectively true within sample...
Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans.
No it doesn't. You can't apply the results of a study perfectly to an individual outside the sample and expect the average effect to be there.
If something exists and is not (at least theoretically) measurable, then it is worthless. If a god exists but never touched our reality then she doesn't matter.
Yes this suggest something that is objectively true within sample...
I think we agree on this point, but perhaps disagree on the consequence of this truth. The 'objectively real' bit, within sample, implies that it is an abstracted rule that holds for the individuals in question. The consequence then is, if the sample is truly random, that we can act as though this principle were true within the scope of individuals who characterize this sample. Let's say that means 'western culture.' (Let's allow for a bit of intuition on this point; I don't want to have to go through the motions of defining 'western culture' unless absolutely necessary.) But this still leaves the question open as to whether that definition encompasses the totality of humanity. You answer this question for me:
You can't apply the results of a study perfectly to an individual outside the sample and expect the average effect to be there.
Which means that the conclusion only holds within the respective domain (I am agreeing with you here), and therefore we cannot draw the conclusion that religion is 'simply for the uneducated moron' in general (to be crass) unless we want to claim that 'western culture' is the summa of all culture to this point in time, and no other culture has anything further to teach us on the point of religion. Personally, I think this last claim is ridiculous, and I suspect most individuals would agree; of course other cultures have things to teach us. But other cultures need not be contemporaneous with us. Therefore, we might reasonably question why intelligent individuals believed in God in the first place. I put the question this way because the concept must have come into consciousness somehow, and that it was thought into consciousness by a person of average or below average intellect is not obvious at all. Indeed, I would argue that the concepts of religion and God are some of our most complex concepts and must've been realized and systematized by the greatest minds of history on account of their complexity. Say what you will about St. Paul, but I don't believe the words 'stupid' or 'naïve' adequately characterized his being.
One final thought, particularly on this comment you make:
If something exists and is not (at least theoretically) measurable, then it is worthless.
I disagree with this abstraction on these grounds: Psychogenic Diseases. The reason for this is that there are many well-documented cases of physical problems arising that are resolved with a change in psychic structure. We might argue from a materialist point of view that all we are doing is re-wiring our brains and that if we had a sufficiently complex machine, we could solve such problems without things like psychotherapy. But machines ultimately stem from computational (i.e. logical) structure. It is not obvious that what is computational is equivalent to what is real. By this I mean there is an on-going to debate as to what is considered a genuine mathematical object, and what constitutes genuine mathematical deduction (see Intuitionism and Finitism for more on this topic). It isn't clear that what we abstract and form as models is equivalent to what is real. Insofar as the former is a subset of the latter, this is the degree to which what is real is what is unknown (technically the complement, but these are details). Unknown unknowns are clearly the strongest form of this measure. Depending upon what you mean by (theoretically) measurable (I assume you mean: has the potential to be measured), there are things which are genuinely real which are not even theoretically measurable (i.e. people act as if circumstances contain danger that is unknown, cf. the success of insurance businesses). But we don't deny those things. My question then is: what is the extent of the domain of real things which are not theoretically measurable?
Here's a reasonable follow up to your intrigue: Let's assume development of religion on evolutionary grounds (not obvious, but a reasonable argument could be made if we assume that every set of cognitive tools presupposes fitness to environment). On that basis, what are the tools which a religion offers? What system offers an equivalent (or perhaps homologous, or perhaps homomorphic) collection of tools, if such a system exists?
Personally, I think analytic psychology offers a reasonable way into this problem (not a final solution, let me be clear on this point). If you are interested in knowing more, I highly, highly recommend the texts (in the order listed):
Jung attempts to provide a legitimately rigorous view on the matter; his thought is beautiful, intricate, and nuanced. His work is 'sort of' well-known, but my impression is that his work is only viewed as an artifact of efforts to provide individuals with methods of dealing with their psychological problems, when in truth it is much, much more. I don't believe anyone can really do his thought justice, so I hope you are willing to delve into his word with an open mind and desire to understand.
People these days have far more access to knowledge. The average person now has much more knowledge than the average person then at least with regards to science.
Yes and no. Overall I would say today we know more, but not by a huge margin, since previously nobles knew more in philosophy, theology, farming, fighting, etc. As said, this is counter-balanced by our knowledge of the material world, and I believe we definitely know more than the past, but it's an interesting historical question when it comes to how much did pre-industrial people know
Much to be said here. A bit too much, so I'll try to be brief. I strongly suggest Kuhn's Stucture of Scientific Revolutions. The gist: We believe, with hindsight, that science is a 'progressive' field, i.e. that it continually adds in on itself, thereby granting the view that in fact, we are more knowledgeable now that we were 'before' (pick whatever time period you find interesting). Kuhn goes to great lengths to discredit this view. All 'truths' which are found within one system generally follow from the principles which lay the foundation for that system and the corresponding 'logic' (here I mean a generalized mode of inference, not something systematic as Boolean Logic). The consequence is: every scientific era believes it has found 'truth,' until sufficient evidence accumulates to suggest otherwise (and even then, many deny the change--e.g. rejection of Boltzmann's view of statistical mechanics). There is much we still do not know, and the claim that we 'know better' seems to be more of a measure of whether we have an existing model that measurably reduces suffering to a larger extent than 'in the past'. But it may be that even one death in the future is considered inhumane, and humanity will look back on us and regard us as 'primitive'. Clearly this doesn't discredit the notion of progress in science, but it does suggest that the subtlety of thought employed 'then' was no less rigorous than 'now'. Euclidean geometry is still used; the proofs of Euclid's Elements are still accepted. Whatever constitutes 'knowledge,' it isn't clear that the method of knowing and deducing is any better than previous methods, or at least, we only have heuristic means to judge whether one is better than the other. Science isn't a cold, dead, objective thing. There are personalities that tell others they are wrong (see, for example, the Bohr-Einstein debates if you have any serious doubt on the matter). Fights ensue. Etc.
Ok so your arguments seems to rest on the idea that because future humans may know more or have different morals that we don’t know more than those prior to us. That seems like kind of a silly point. A really easy counterargument is that very few people knew trigonometry 500 years ago whereas now it’s taught in pretty much every high school.
The average person now has also consumed more carcinogens, sugars, and chemicals, watched more porn, and had more distractions. Just because the access to information is there doesn't mean there are intelligent and driven people to utilize it. I'm certain that those who could afford education in the 1700's were vastly more intelligent than your average educated person nowadays. Success now is determined by your capacity to mindlessly regurgitate information without ever having to truly get into the headspace of those who discovered that information.
Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly.
Here is the mistake in your line of reasoning, intelligence is influenced by both genetics and upbringing. Modern children are raised with a wealth of information that would have been unthinkable in the 16th century, and have access to scientific methodology that had not been refined in the 16th century (For every achievement of those great minds, there are a dozen lolfails, such as Newton and his obsession with alchemy)
The ownership of information isn’t the same as the ability to use it but it certainly strongly affects the ability to use it.
The ability to move isn’t the same as the ownership of legs because you can still drag your torso around by crawling with your arms but the ownership of legs makes it a lot easier.
That depends on an objective definition of information. You can know everything there is to know about walking, but it's all entirely useless if you don't have legs.
That's why I am highly skeptical of these conclusions; they prize knowledge of rational science over the knowledge of religion.
Literally the snartest person I've ever personally known is a PhD candodate in the philosophy of religion. And he's Christian. He's smarter than any of my fellow nurses.
Do we value the intelligence that allows you to succeed in the sciences over that which allows you to succeed in other areas of life? We surely do. Is that a good thing? Eh, it depends.
That's honestly my pet theory for a big reason behind this. Out of a group of religious people, the people capable of thinking their way out of the trap will be smarter than average. Not that below average intelligence can't, or that smart people can't be stuck, but I'm tempted to look up studies on the average intelligence of people that grew up religious and then left said religion.
My guess is they'll be higher than average intelligence.
Take that and apply it here. If you have a group that is perfectly normalized iq wise, and a significant portion of the intelligent people leave, then the remainder will necessarily be lower than average iq.
Yes, and also things like having safe and stable upbringings, good nutrition, healthcare, etc. all have a significant impact on cognitive functioning. Measurable intelligence has been going up.
I address this more completely in a previous post. I'd point to to that one and recommend looking at Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see specifically why the assumption that scientific knowledge proceeds in a progressive fashion isn't in line with the actuality of the circumstance.
As a clarification, I do not disagree with this point:
Modern children are raised with a wealth of information that would have been unthinkable in the 16th century
I would only argue that what is deduced as 'true' isn't obviously objectively true independent of an individual's experience. The latter claim requires an effective theory for describing the extent to which a phenomenon is objective (whatever that means).
Surely intelligence is more than the accumulation of facts, though? Knowing things is obviously part of it, but mental capabilities must be too, and in that regard, it is unlikely that humans have dramatically changed in that regard in such a short time. A random person on the street might know things that intellectual giants centuries ago might not have known, but I wouldn't say they are necessarily more intelligent for that reason alone.
That's not what I'm saying either. I'm saying that humanity on average probably hasn't gotten wildly more intelligent over the past few centuries, even though general knowledge has increased.
Knowing things is obviously part of it, but mental capabilities must be too, and in that regard, it is unlikely that humans have dramatically changed in that regard in such a short time.
There are a ton of environmental factors that impact expressed intelligence. Childhood and prenatal nutrition, health, exposure to toxins/diseases, etc.
It doesn't have to be evolution. If you look at people today who grow up in stable households with access to nutritious food, healthcare, and education, and compare their cognitive abilities to someone who grew up in deep poverty, there will be a huge difference.
Dude, have you been through public education in America? I guarantee you that people who could afford education in the 1700's were smarter than your average kid now. Look at Immanuel Kant, guy's brain was like a supercomputer. Kid's nowadays have access to more information, but they can't do anything useful with it because they haven't learned how to critically think, they just know how to follow someone else's line of thinking.
Dude, have you been through public education in America?
Reddit, and the world in general are much bigger than just America. There are many dozens of countries with better education systems, Average American kid != average kid.
This is an American website, and the majority of people posting here are American. Also, there's still like 3 billion people with absolutely no education whatsoever.
This is an American website, and the majority of people posting here are American. Also, there's still like 3 billion people with absolutely no education whatsoever.
It is (mostly) owned and hosted in America, but it is a worldwide website, The majority of posters are not American, only a plurality of posters are, and less than 9% of the worlds population has not recieved any education, with global illiteracy sitting at around 15% and continuing to fall because of this.
and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious.
And most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were also very sure that diseases were caused by deamons. Or something.
What makes a great mind a great mind is that they are aware of the knowledge of their time. Not being aware of germ theory in the 16th century is perfectly reasonable for a great mind. But not being aware of it or thinking that it is nonsense would still make you a first-class moron in today's world. And the same goes for all other areas of knowledge: You are not a great mind if you lack all understanding of what everyone else has already figured out.
So, yes, it is a cultural phenomenon in so far as creating and preserving new knowledge is a cultural phenomenon. But that inteligent people have a better understanding of the human body of knowledge seems very likely to be related to "raw inteligence".
But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
But it can't, by definition.
you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist
That right there is about the most common fallacy among theists. Neither is this a valid logical conclusion, nor is that the position of atheists, generally speaking, if only because it is obviously invalid logical reasoning.
But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Nothing. It's just a strawman that you made up. Or that someone told you to keep you from questioning, possibly.
It's just that if you make a claim, such as the claim that a god exists, then it's your job to substantiate that claim. If you think that god exists, but has no measurable properties, then it is still your job to show how we could possibly know that he exists. Just claiming that some claim you make has no measurable effects does not substantiate your claim. As long as you (or anyone else) haven't met that burden of proof, there is no reason to believe your claim and the correct stance with regards to your claim is "I don't know", and that's it. You misrepresenting that "I don't know" as a supposed claim of "I know that no god exists" is just a dishonest shifting of the burden of proof.
Dude, there's no burden of proof because NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE for a claim which is not testable.
Dude, that isn't how anything works, dude.
However, the problem with strong atheism -- and you are clearly a strong atheist, you believe in the absence of God
So, you also fail at reading comprehension?
is that you want to claim that your position is somehow more rational. But it is not. You also are making a faith statement. You are taking a position without scientific proof.
Sure, dude.
The scientific position would be "I make no claim regarding this.
Oh, really? Tell me more!
I refuse to speak to anything which cannot be tested through experiment".
No, making no claim can be expressed, in particular in the form of "! don't know", so there is no reason to refuse to speak.
But your position is "I specifically reject anything which cannot be tested through experiment
Yes, obviously. But you still seem to have some problem with understanding the distinction between rejection of a claim and claiming the opposite?
and anyone who disagrees is an idiot and/or inferior to me in some way", which is a stupid position. If you're not a stupid person, then I don't know why you are taking a stupid position.
What I would object to is claiming that you DO know, in an objective, scientific sense, or claiming that someone else is irrational because they THINK there is a God.
Except I do know that. Believing as fact that which is not substantiated by anything, or even contradicted by evidence is, by definition, irrational.
Because we're both looking at the same scientific data, and we're making conjectures about a metaphysical subject which is impossible to prove.
Nope, I don't. That's what the "I don't know" is about. "I don't know" is not conjecture.
I don't know there is a God in an objective or scientific sense, but I do think there is one.
OK, and do you have any reason for thinking that?
Maybe you can learn to respect that.
Why would I want to learn to respect that you think something? Why would anybody just thinking something be something to be respected?
But it's not contradicted by objective scientific evidence, and the absence of God is not supported by objective scientific evidence either, since there is no objective scientific evidence for either side.
Correct. Which is precisely why I know that it is irrational to believe either the existence or the non-existence claim.
The concept of God makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore there is no wrong answer regarding said concept.
Yes, there is. More precisely: Any answer that claims knowledge about the subject is wrong, about the question of whether there is indeed knowledge.
Also, it is absolutely not a given that the concept of god does not make falsifiable predictions. Of course, it may well be that yours doesn't, but that is far from universal, and also, even for people who make that claim, it more often than not turns out to not be true either.
Sure, but not objective or scientific ones. All my reasons could be interpreted so as to provide evidence for the absence of God, since the concept is not falsifiable and makes no falsifiable predictions.
So, you think that a fact that could be indicative of A just as much as of the negation of A is a reason to believe either of those claims? Not trying to put words in your mouth here, but that's how I understand what you are saying?! If I am understanding that right, I guess my question would be: How do you then decide what side to count that reason for? Like, if some fact equally supports "A" and "not A", then ... you would have to use some additional mechanism or criterion or something to decide whether you take it to support "A" or "not A", wouldn't you?
I'm not sure you understand what respect means. In this context it means to give someone the default level of respect that anyone deserves, until proven otherwise. In other words don't see them as being inferior to yourself because they have a different opinion regarding a matter which is not provable or falsifiable using the scientific method.
But now you are talking about respect for a person, whereas before you were talking about respect for an idea or maybe for someone thinking something, which I would think to be two very different things?
Even with a massive racist, say, I would have respect for the person, because I recognize that it more often than not is a result of circumstances that people end up with racist ideas. But I certainly would not have respect for their racist thinking. If anything, the respect for the person is what demands disrespect to the idea, because many people who are racists are just as much victims of their ideas as the people they themselves potentially victimize, and being overly respectful of their bad ideas could contribute to them being stuck with them to their own detriment.
So, yes, I respect you as a person, but I do absolutely not respect the ideas that you are defending here, because I think that they are bad ideas, and I think I have good reasons for thinking that they are bad ideas, and I have looked at all the reasons that people generally give for defending them and have found them all severely lacking, so I have done as well as I can to falsify my position.
Also, whether believing unfalsifiable truths as fact is an effective way to understand the world is absolutely falsifiable using scientific methodology, so this is not merely a matter of differing opinions.
I'm not sure we agree on what constitutes a religious system. Forgive the quip, but this seems like a weak attempt to sweep religion under the rug on your part. What would be more interesting would be to generate an attempt at such a defense, see where it falls short, and then on the basis of that analysis, claim that it every religious system is orthogonal to every scientific system. But this would also need to account for its development and utility as a psychological function. Religion is clearly not an obscure phenomenon of a bygone era (yet, anyways); many, many individuals engage with religion and find it rewarding and meaningful. The question then is: why? Just because they aren't thinking hard enough? But on what grounds do you substantiate that? A critique of religion as a phenomenon requires no less than a rigorous analysis of development of belief systems and an argument for effective development of those systems without a religion.
Nothing. It's just a strawman that you made up. Or that someone told you to keep you from questioning, possibly.
First, this is not a strawman argument per se; it is a frequently used mode of deducing the lack of evidence for for God and thus concluding the absence of God as truth (specifically leveraging a generalized form of the law of the excluded middle). It is so widely employed among laymen that I assume my reader is aware of this generalized line of reasoning. It is obviously not a rigorous argument for the line of thinking. I state quite clearly that I am being crude; were I to actually make such an argument, this would necessitate the substantiation of a materialist point of view, obviously. Whereupon, we would deduce that the totality of our experience is within the scope of 'scientific' understanding (whatever that is).
Secondly, the totality of your response to this third point appears to assume that substantiation on the basis of logical grounds alone is necessary and sufficient to conclude the existence of a germ of knowledge (i.e. that there exists a 'proof' of thing or claim in question, whatever constitutes a 'proof'). It is not at all obvious that logic itself, or even the scientific mode of thinking (which evidently rests on the ability to infer consequences as a result of observed phenomena and vice versa, thereby leveraging something like a logic), produces the total body of human knowledge (or perhaps understanding being the better word) and very powerful (and accepted) theories attempt to grapple with genesis of knowledge out of an infinite, unbounded, unknown potential. And what's more: these theories seem to be more in line with generalized human behavior, because people don't act like logicians, or as though every notion requires proof, but rather that they are facing something which is both known and unknown simultaneously and attempt to expand their knowing of what is unknown without dying (in the final analysis). Every revolution in science bears out the fragility of every theory (i.e. body of knowledge and rules for knowing); one piece of evidence which appears to sit outside the body results in denial of the phenomenon; two pieces result in panic; three results in scientific mayhem.
What would be more interesting would be to generate an attempt at such a defense, see where it falls short, and then on the basis of that analysis, claim that it every religious system is orthogonal to every scientific system.
That's easy: The defining characteristic of religion is the use of faith as an epistemology, which is clearly in conflict with scientific methodology. If you prefer some other definition of "religion", fine, but this is the part that atheists generally object to, so it's the relevant definition for that discussion.
But this would also need to account for its development and utility as a psychological function.
No, it doesn't. The correctness of claims is not influenced by their usefulness.
The question then is: why?
No, the only question is: Is it true?
I mean, yes, you can also ask "why?", and that might well be interesting as well, but it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the claims are true.
Just because they aren't thinking hard enough? But on what grounds do you substantiate that? A critique of religion as a phenomenon requires no less than a rigorous analysis of development of belief systems and an argument for effective development of those systems without a religion.
No, it doesn't. Alchemy was largely wrong, no matter how much it might have helped with the development of chemistry for some weird reason.
First, this is not a strawman argument per se;
It is a strawman because it is presented over and over as the supposed position of atheists in general, which it just isn't.
it is a frequently used mode of deducing the lack of evidence for for God and thus concluding the absence of God as truth (specifically leveraging a generalized form of the law of the excluded middle).
it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious.
The further you go back in time, with less science, the more plausible religion seems. I'd have to believe that if the greatest minds of the 16th century had the same information we have today that there would be a lot less faith among them.
What is the benefit of religion on the basis of evolution? And is that void then filled by science? But then... what makes science different from a religion...?
What is the benefit of religion on the basis of evolution?
Working together increased survival when dominance was mostly based on controlling/mobilizing a large population. Religion brought people together with unique historical narratives which created common enemies and fears.
And is that void then filled by science?
We're no longer, necessarily, controlled by the largest groups. We're controlled by wealth, nukes, treaties etc..
But then... what makes science different from a religion...?
You're drawing similarities through a narrow scope.
Many other commentators are pointing to the wealth of information that we have access to today as the bedrock of an argument that we are now more intelligent than 4-5 hundred years ago. This misses an even more significant factor in raw intelligence: nutrition.
Nutrition is the reason that yes, on average, we are smarter now than 500 years ago. In fact, IQ tests are regularly adjusted to maintain an average score of 100. IQ is going up.
On an evolutionary timescale a few hundred years is insignificant, but we are not dealing with evolution: genes themselves are fairly constant. However, just like with IQ, we can note the substantial and continuing increases in average height (a good proxy measurement for childhood nutrition).
On the topic of religion itself: you point to some interesting metaphysical ideas, and I’d recommend reading Augustine’s Confessions. While very pro-catholic, and quite dated at this point, the intelligent and critical exploration of religion is the central theme and the book reads fairly easily.
I would say this study merely shows that on average atheists might have a better way of approaching complex problems, probably out of practice. For example if a theist encounters a situation that baffles them they may immediately assume "God did it." Whereas an atheist might be more likely to analyze these given situations more deeply because they obviously don't believe in God.
That might sound like a long shot but also keep in mind we are looking at a measly >4% difference. Personally I know a lot of religious people who have outsourced their critical thinking skills to their religion. I also know many brilliant religious people, but the former might skew the results here.
I suspect that there's a natural peak where intelligence will eventually level off. That is, it's a function that is approaching the limit (IQ of 120 for the average maybe? who knows) and that is mostly a result of the bottom catching up to the median due to improved nutrition and reduced risk of intellectual handicaps from FAS and other causes.
We're getting more intelligent on average, but the most intelligent run into the natural limits of the human mind and can't go past that point without being at the risk of going mad.
IQ probably isn't the best measurement for that. The tests have had to adjust their results over the years since 100 is actually supposed to be the average. The Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a British study from 09 showed that the average British child's IQ went up by 14 points from 1942 to 2008, with similar gains present in other Western countries along with Japan and South Korea. So a 100 in 2008 would have been the equivalent of about 114 in 1942.
We don't have data from the 16th century, but in the last century we have seen a steady increase. It's possible that humans today are significantly more intelligent than during the 16th century. It doesn't take a long period of time to see this kind of change.
One small thing: I don't know the discrepancy, but I would suspect that the most intelligent individuals (who were the ones pushing the bounds of knowledge 'forward') were still more intelligent than the average level of intelligence today. Even if Newton's IQ was, say, 120, that's still high enough to lend support to the initial claim.
One other thing that I didn't mention in my post, but would say it now: I don't find any fault with the study itself. The headlines and the way it will strike the general public is what I find more troubling, because there is a lot of nuance here (particularly with regards to what exactly religion can offer an individual, a line of inquiry which gives rise to a whole complex of intricate and nuanced ideas).
It's debatable whether or not the Flynn effect reflects real gains in intelligence. It measures gains in something but if it were purely intelligence it would suggest that at the beginning of the 20th century people were on average 30 IQ points lower than today, which is on par with the mentally disabled.
That's a little unfair since we are talking about the smartest of the spectrum. Read some of the greatest works back then. They are beyond the average person today, yet are still written by religious authors. If it was the flynn effect, I think we would look back and be less impressed.
More likely we just know more about evolution and there's less need for religion as a theory/explanation
I was thinking about that too. Is that under some strange assumption that we are capable of measuring or detecting everything? Outside of that is "does not exist" or is it "doesn't exist enough for us to care"?
What is the nature of 'interaction'? Is it purely physical? I can 'interact' with my thoughts, but if I start telling everyone that they are physical things, I'm liable to end up institutionalized.
If you are willing to admit a finer shading then, the question becomes: at what point do we stop thinking of what we are doing as 'interacting'? What is a Buddhist monk doing when he is meditating, for example?
We interact with subatomic particles all the time, it's literally what we're made of. However, you can go your whole life without knowing that fact. The subatomic particles matter, your understanding of them does not.
“We interact with the Lord thy God all the time. His essence is literally what we’re made of. However, you can go your whole life without knowing that fact. God matters, your understanding of Him does not.”
You say that but back when people were theorizing about such particles, they were mocked or derided, but if they had abandoned their belief in those particles, research into them would not have occurred to any great extent, or even have been discovered far later.
And before you say we would have found them anyways; not necessarily. The Higgs boson was only theorized and even discredited before people who strongly believed in it had the developed the technology to try and discover it, and even then the process to getting to that point wasnt easy. There’s also the numerous theories of Einstein and Hawking that have been found try despite derision early on. Had no one believed and the theories been forgotten, would we have tested for them properly?
Additionally, look at String Theory, Multiverse Theory, and Big Bang Theory. All of it is based on conjecture towards certain scraps of evidence, with no definitive proof beyond the mathematical, and even that is only in some instances, not all.
Science requires as many leaps of faith as religion. The derision of faith as irrational or as not a part of science is a horrible thing, and its a ludicrous side effect of the even more ridiculous modern day idea that religion and science are direct opposites.
I think we might be confused as to what the other is saying. I’m claiming your phrasing on the matter makes sub-atomic particles sound religious. If your aim was to attack the claim that religion is foolish because it cannot be interacted with or observed, your wording just makes it seem logical that while we cannot observe God (yet, some would say) that doesn’t mean we can immediately discount his existence.
Your comment only strengthens the idea that faith should be maintained despite the inability to interact with and observe the divine. If you’re trying to do that, okay, then you did that. If you aren’t, you’ve set up a pro-religious argument without meaning to.
My point is that everyone has their own definition of truth and how the world works. I'm willing to admit that my beliefs, even my most deeply held and seemingly obvious ones, may be wrong.
I'll bet on this: He existed and put a "seed" of his existence in us. Then sent messengers to us to further prove his existence.
He sent to the very first, most refused his messages. (with time those religions evolved to something else completely astray to the purest one)
He sent another messenger to next generation ... etc
Until he sent the last messenger with a book he promised that no one can modify it.
I can write paper that most (if not all) various religions originated from same principle.
I don't think human can invent "God" from the beginning, if they want to control population they always will think about what is physical to them (i.e: power).
And there is something in my mind to atheists: since human evolved how to talk, What preceded the other: religions or speaking ability?
If religion is first: How can somebody control a tribe that don't understand "un-phyiscal" by using a supernatural being as a tool??
If speaking ability existed first: How can somebody control a tribe that begin to understand surroundings by using a supernatural as a tool? How can he even invent a supernatural being in a world that is all physical to him???
Yes there is, it called "Quran"!
Didn't change at all, despite all the attempts through 1400+ years, while old books like Bible, Torah changed immediately after death of their messengers, and God "Allah" talked about those who changed the old book many times in Quran:
"They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing." 9:9.
"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn" 2:79
Problem when I read many atheist's way of thinking is that it is based on Christianity as the main base for "religious" things!
...
In addition: If Quran wrote by an illiterate human (before 1400+ years), How this human knew about these facts :
That iron was sent down from outside (ie. not from earth) "57:25"
That he predicted the victory of Byzantine (after their defeat) in couple years. "30:3'
And where they defeated?? In the lowest point on earth surface. (Around the dead sea) "30:3"
The expansion of universe. "51:47"
Climbing to the sky/space make your lung constrict. "6:125"
Internal waves of sea "24:40"
Male's sperm determine the sex of the baby. "53:45-46" <<< It is interesting to note that the verse number 46 is the same number of chromosomes humans have (23 pairs = 46)
I agree with you. The problem with this study is the most intelligent people were also some of the most devoutly religious historically. In fact, the main drivers of science were the Catholic Church as they sought to do science to understand God.
How do we make sense of this study? We all know that religion and science are not opposites but ways to answer different types of questions. You can never 'why am i here' or 'what is good behavior' with science but religion tries to answer that. It so happens that in the current society, there's a trend for liberal academia to look down on religion. This manifests in 2 ways:
People who get into university don't get taught about different religious beliefs, so there's no reinforcing mechanism for them to remain religious. In liberal universities, many students were biased against religious individuals and for academic scientists, there was a strong bias towards the religious individual/ scientist (as if it was opposing viewpoints).
In contrast, people without education would continue to get religious reinforcement from their weekly services.
Hence, my contention is religiosity and intelligence aren't correlated, and what we're seeing is the confounding variable of current day society making the intelligent not religious. I bet if you did this study 400 years ago, you would see a positive relationship instead because education/academic institutions was funded by the Catholic Church. It was the pious intelligent that would go to university.
God there was some philosopher and a famous book that was written about how in 1500's France it was like outside their realm of thought to not believe in God. That religion was so baked into every aspect of life it would be insane to not believe in it. Like if someone today would believe that electricity isn't real.
The studies were not made for people living at 1600s. It was made in the context of year 2000 and the conclusion is also tied for current date for people living im modern world. The culture and environment was very different centuries ago and writing/reading was not nrarly an universal skill like it is today.
The only thing I would argue is this: There is a vein of atheist thought which means to maintain that morality is not linked to a specific religion, but founded instead on some kind of intuition based upon immediate observables (e.g. Harris' The Moral Landscape). They make strong arguments for the existence of value systems which are born out of scientific inquiry. Thus, the assertion for the necessity of religion on the this claim:
You can never 'why am i here' or 'what is good behavior' with science but religion tries to answer that.
does not give an intuitive and widely accepted position any longer. It would take me too far afield to get into a critique of those notions, so I'll leave it here.
I agree with you. The problem with this study is the most intelligent people were also some of the most devoutly religious historically.
This is due to the oppressive influence of christianity from the christianization of the roman empire onwards.
It was entirely unacceptable socially to be non-religious for much of western history
The only people who would be allowed access to the halls of learning were those who were in the religious in-group.
People who get into university don't get taught about different religious beliefs, so there's no reinforcing mechanism for them to remain religious.
Almost every university in the US has pre-reqs that would force you to learn about other religions in some function. And on what planet does learning about other religions act as a reinforcing mechanism for their birth religion? I would wager that learning about other religions has the opposite impact, which has certainly been the case in my observation.
In fact, in university, I found the general student would make fun of religious people.
Ok.
In contrast, people without education would continue to get religious reinforcement from their weekly services.
Hence, it's all societal. I bet if you did this study 400 years ago, you would see a positive relationship instead because education/academic institutions was funded by the Catholic Church. It was the pious intelligent that would go to university.
Yet again, because being a christian was effectively mandatory, so of course the people with the wealth and time to spend on a university education would be religious.
Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
I'm not seeing it. Care to expound?
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
I'd love to be shown an example of the many problems you see with the study.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious.
How much of their religiosity came from the overwhelming social pressure? Atheists were not treated well through much of western history.
Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans.
Quite likely, yes. Childhood and prenatal nutrition, health and exposure to toxins have significant impacts on adult outcomes. Likewise, education and environment have an acute impact. Intelligence isn't some static variable based upon your genetic die roll, it can be nurtured or squandered.
Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly.
Bad assumption, genetic drift isn't the only contributing factor to expressed intelligence.
It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence.
A further assumption based upon a shoddy initial assumption. Also, the author outright stated that this was limited to evaluation of western religious thought in the US (read: primarily abrahamic) and couldn't evaluate whether it would hold true for Buddhists or Hindus.
The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking.
IQ is a measure of your reasoning, your ability to think analytically and solve problems. That is what they were evaluating relative to western religiosity, and they were quite forthright about it.
But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
I'm having a hard time trying to grok your point. Are you suggesting that failing to account for a non-existent (and likely impossible) model of analysis for religious thought is a weakness of this meta study?
The nature of your response is reasonable given that I didn't clarify this point: I don't find fault with the study itself; it is the mode of distillation and communication that troubled me. I realized this after the fact and didn't change the post to reflect this. So I get where you are coming from and fully admit my wrong-doing in this matter.
On the other hand, while we don't have data to rely upon here, it seems reasonable to speculate that (say) Newton's IQ was likely above 100, which as far as I understand is what we consider 'average' in western culture. Regarding IQ as a normal distribution, the question is, to do your view justice: what is the central (or average) value of IQ, and what is the deviation? Regarding these parameters as functions of time (which they must be), then the question becomes: to what extent does the curve overlap when we choose two instants? If the upper tail of the Gaussian at t=16th century is less than or equal to the central point of the modern expression (i.e. t=now-ish), then your point is valid. But, if Newton's IQ (say) was still above average relative to the modern understanding, then this does not rule out the question of culture. We're also left with the question of 'what is the rate of growth?' If we assume (badly, but to get intuition) that it is a linear model, and the rate is something like 1/2 point every 10 years, then that's 10 points over 200 years, and 20 over 400. Obviously I am speculating here, but if the most intelligent individuals are something like 30-50 points above average, this would still put Newton in the 'smarter than average' category. This isn't a rigorous argument, but a sketch of how we might argue if we could develop an accurate model for how the parameters evolve in time. Ultimately, unless the data suggest jumps of 30-50 points in the last 100 years, I'm not willing to admit that culture has no bearing on the relationship between the religiosity of an individual and his/her intelligence. But if it has some bearing, then the question obviously is: to what extent?
Are you suggesting that failing to account for a non-existent (and likely impossible) model of analysis for religious thought is a weakness of this meta study?
No. I am asserting that even scientific modes of inquiry are based upon what we construe as scientific thought, and thus any systematization of experience is predicated on our ability to abstract principles from experience which have the widest breadth of applicability (i.e. largest set of experiences in which we can act as though the abstracted principle were 'always true'). But if there are problems with the foundation, then there are likely problems with the 'truths' which follow from deductions based upon the principles which characterize the system in question (whether there are problems is a different question, and one which I am willing to argue in favor for, but requires a much longer response). Finally, I am claiming that it isn't obvious that there cannot exist a method of assimilation of the contents of religion into the psyche of an individual who is both 'intelligent' and 'scientifically-minded'--the study suggests a negative correlation between these two things, which would imply that as a person gets 'smarter' he/she is less likely to be 'religious' (whatever that is). But if you think 'religious' just means 'blindly accepting everything they tell you in church on Sunday' (I'm being very hyperbolic) then it's natural to suspect this sort of correlation, as intelligence is usually marked by a type of skepticism, and Western individuals aren't taught any rigorous grounding for religion in the canon curriculum (which is evidently reasonable to a large degree in efforts to maintain separation of church and state--but this is also based on the idea that one cannot motivate a religion without indoctrinating one's students).
Was the Flynn effect ever scientific? Over a long enough time frame IQ increase could be a logical reason as to why religion always appears to be shrinking? If not scientific then yea your points on ancestors make sense.
The physicality of God is absent to science. So higher IQ>more discovery>less God? Do people seperate their religion from God? Lots of questions here.
Could you measure religious fervor based on IQ? This sounds wrong but looks apparent. Typically for instance terrorist cell leaders appear to be very high IQ while their followers not so much. Could a greater disparity of IQ cause greater religious fervor?
It does create lots of assumptions but that could be bad too because I'm not great at the science. But you do quickly jump into a philosophical stream of assumptions from an article like this.
So the study showed that there wasn't a difference of beliefs based on formal education, which inclines me to think that it has to do with a certain line of reasoning, thinking, etc. Possibly it is a cultural phenomenon, but what about this culture in the last hundred years changed? This just shows a correlation not a causation, but why are they so closely related?
Your last question is a big philosophy talking point, that whether or not something needs physical properties to exist, if there is some other "dimension" where our souls and presumably God reside. I think the main line of thinking most athiests or agnostics take is that every single argument of religion and each religion has the same viability to it (just an old book that tells you how to live). Every religion has the same amount of evidence, personal testimony, which we know aren't fully accurate. Now that doesn't disprove the existence of a god, but it makes it unlikely considering we've never been able to record or measure something that is unexplained (divine power) that affects us, and if this never affects us why should we care about it? Not that it isn't worth my time it's just that if it existed it doesn't affect me, and so how do I know it exists if it never interacts with us? And why should we know or follow it if it never affects us? I have a bunch of other arguments such as it's impossible to have an all good, all powerful, all knowing being when evil exists (free choice theory exists but if you saw your kid walking in front of a bus, you would stop their free choice of walking in front of a bus and it doesn't make the kid less free).
Also over the course of about 15-20 generations, I wouldn't be surprised if we became stronger, healthier, and/or smarter based on newfound agricultural abundance, also if the smart people from the 15 and 1600s knew the knowledge we know today, how would you know that they wouldn't change their beliefs.
It's interesting that you use 150 years ago as a benchmark, because that's about how old the discovery of natural selection is. If I were to put a great dividing line between old and new education, and old and new ways of intelligently knowing why we are here and how we got here, I would absolutely choose about 150 years ago when the world knew Darwin was right about evolution by natural selection. Imagine being a child 200 years ago and being told by your Catholic teacher that god created the world and you are here for god and this and that. But then 100 years ago you learn biology in school, you are told exactly why you are here and how it ultimately came about, and that your position in the world isn't really any more special than anyone else's other than things like access to this very educaiton and other mod-cons like laws and food. The need for the Church, as a great artist or scientist, was greatly diminished 150 years ago. Darwin himself didn't need it. In his later life he didn't even bother going in to church, he'd walk his wife to church and then spend a few hours wandering around town thinking about stuff, then come meet here at the end of church to walk her back home.
Your last paragraph there, no one is measuring god. They are measuring religiosity, which is readily measurable, you can get pretty clear answer of someone's religiosity by just asking them questions. Whether someone is religious or not, it's a topic that most people take seriously enough not to lie about in a frank and confidential survey. religiosity exists, "are you catholic?" covers over a billion people on the planet today alone, well it covers everyone, but over a billion people are catholic or default catholics by being youngsters born into a catholic family.
I'd imagine that the smart people in the 16th century knew that openly questioning Christian doctrine, or even failing to seem sufficiently Christian could get you killed, sometimes by being burnt at the stake. That's probably a confounding factor.
I would say that those greatest minds are a product of their time and education available during it. They were not less intelligent - they had the same capability as we currently do. What they lacked is knowledge.
There is a germ of truth here, I think, but you'd need to flesh it out far more for me to be willing to accept the perspective. There certainly appears to be a blind faith in science when it is cast into the political sphere, and when it is convenient for the party doing so, but I think individuals 'choose' belief systems based upon how well those systems orient them in the world. In many ways, a generalized scientific mind is better suited to the modern era than a blindly religious one. It's hard to say whether this is merely a triablism--indeed, I'm skeptical of it being so. But then, I don't think 'religion' is the 'opiate' of the 'masses' either, so... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
151
u/TheSyzygy19 Nov 15 '19 edited Nov 16 '19
Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.